Letter: Felony required?

So, let’s review. We are legally married, so we will need to file our federal tax return as married. But, on our state tax return, Kansas says we must file as single, even though the law requires that the filing status on our state return match the one on our federal return. Thus, Kansas requires that we commit tax fraud.

But wait, there’s more. As soon as we put our signatures on those state tax returns in which we listed our filing status as single, we will be committing perjury as well. As one might imagine, we are having a wee bit of difficulty accepting that the state of Kansas can force us to commit felonies.

Comments

I'd file as married and to heck with the consequences. Stand up for yourself and do the right thing. Dont let the tax man bully you.

Mr. Brownback is clearly on the wrong side of history. Eventually your decision will be regarded as justified civil disobedience. If the tax authorities hassle you, fight back. It will be a fight to proudly tell your grandkids about some day.

I agree. This governor is a fool and a without backbone. He will do anything the Koch's tell him even though it is not in his best interest. Do you drive the KTA? I do and the price for it went up when he took over and the toll booth workers tell me that people are angry. Let''s get rid of him!!!

I'm guessing that this couple is legally married in another state, since KS doesn't recognize same sex marriages. Then, because of the recent SC decision, they can file as married federally, even though KS doesn't allow ss marriages.

Then KS law says they should file as married for KS state purposes if they're filing federally as married, but the governor says to file as single.

Sure sounds like the governor is telling people to violate KS law - he wouldn't do that now, would he?

Not sure how it would change your tax amount. Maybe you could explain it?

But this does bring up an issue. What about those who have more than one spouse? How would they file as married? There's only one other line. If they only list one spouse, wouldn't they be committing tax fraud? And if they sign, wouldn't they be committing perjury as well?

The only polygamous marriages in the United States that I know of are practiced by 'The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints' (FLDS) members. It's actually legal in that the way it works is that the man has one legal wife, known as his "first wife", sometimes literally the first woman he married, but the term actually means the most important wife. She has a special standing over the other wives, and directs the household in the absence of her husband. When he's in jail, for example.

All of the others are "spiritual wives", and are legally regarded to be only mistresses that usually, but not always, live with him and his "first wife". But to them, it means far more than that, the man is spiritually married to all of them for all time in the eyes of their Deity.

My opinion on the matter is that it is a throwback practice from antiquity that has no place in our modern times, and it stems from a literal reading and a liberal interpretation of The Book of Mormon, as well as from the Old Testament which describes plural marriages from well over 2,000 years ago.

It is very important to note that the 'Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints' (LDS), sometimes called simply 'The Mormons', formally denounced and ceased to practice polygamy well over 100 years ago.

In any case, each of the "spiritual wives" would need to file her own tax return, if she has an income of her own that is high enough to require her to file.

But as far as I know, there are no FLDS members in Kansas, so it's a moot point anyway.

Our society has descended into confusion. A marriage is a man and a woman; what we call "marriage" isn't really that at all, but a deviation from God's intent for this holy and blessed relationship and building block of culture. You are confused because we are living in a mixed up time when God's institution has been disregared, redefned. KS law is closer to the biblical and cultural norm of human society for thousands of years.

And yes, polygamy is next; Utah was admitted to the union after the Salt Lake City Mormons changed their practice. But polygamy is hardly rare in the western states.

"KS law is closer to the biblical and cultural norm of human society for thousands of years."

For just one example, King Solomon was said, apparently on no good Biblical authority, to have had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Even though that might have been an exaggeration, he had a large number of them, and many of them are named. That was less than 2,700 years ago. But, exactly how long ago King Solomon lived is not possible to determine. In any case, it was not "thousands of years" ago.

Cultures and mores change over time, and the reasons for plural marriage do not apply in the United States. Polygamy was practiced in the ancient world for two main reasons, one of which was to cement alliances between different countries, and the other was because so many men were killed in battles that there would have been a huge number of single women otherwise. Hopefully, those reasons will never again apply.

Plural marriage is still commonly practiced in many Middle Eastern countries. But, they have a totally different set of mores and their culture is wildly different than ours.

It appears that you didn't read my comment carefully enough to notice that I was talking about events that happened hundreds of years before Jesus Christ was born, and that I made comprehensive statements about how different cultures practice marriage differently, both monogamous marriages and plural marriages.

There are many very different cultures in the world, some practice plural marriage, and some do not.

And what was the reasons for 2 people of the same sex to think they can get "married"?

And why wouldn't the same reasons apply to trans / bi / poly? Can you give a valid reason? What reason do you have to restrict "what goes on in the privacy of one's bedroom?"

If perverted sex is condoned for one deviant group, why not all groups?

"Plural marriage is still commonly practiced in many Middle Eastern countries. But, they have a totally different set of mores and their culture is wildly different than ours."

And we did have a different set of culture, but it seems to be going down a slippery slope. You guys said in the past it is a slippery slope fallacy, but now I hear in California they are sliding further down into having no limit on multiple "parents". It's coming. No fallacy found.

On what basis, gr, have you determined that certain types of sex are "perverted" and practiced by "deviants"? The definitions of what constitutes "proper" sex have diverged so much over time and space and religion and culture. Why should your personal definitions constitute the law of the land?

The definition of incest varies from state to state, in that it is legal for full first cousins to marry in some states, but not in others. However, those marriages are recognized in all of the states. In all of the states, it is illegal for relatives closer than that to marry.

Incest, or marriage between close relatives, brings out recessive traits which can bring about premature birth, a much higher incidence of stillbirths, and just about any birth defect you can name. Possibly the worst ones are decreased intelligence and mental retardation, which have been noted to be very prevalent in societies that commonly practice marriage between close relatives, such as first cousins. But, it's not politically correct to point that out.

Ron, so you're saying all we need is one state to make it legal for relatives to marry and it would be ok?

"But as far as I know, there are no FLDS members in Kansas, so it's a moot point anyway. "

And as far as I know, it is illegal for those of the same sex to marry in Kansas. Sodomy used to be illegal in all states. It still is in most states. But someone seems to think that promotion of illegal activities and making them legal is worthwhile. So, according to them, just because something is illegal is no reason not to promote it.

Have you come up with a valid reason why wouldn't the same reasons argued for promoting sodomy shouldn't apply to trans / bi / poly? What reason do you have to restrict "what goes on in the privacy of one's bedroom?"

Let me get this straight,Kansas recognizes concealed carry permits from all states but does not recognize same sex marriage that is legal somewhere else.

One commenter writes that this is right because it is because "KS law is closer to the biblical and cultural norm of human society for thousands of years." The last time I read the Constitution there was no mention of following customs just because they were thousands of years old.

What does two different last names have to do with anything? I've been married for 15 years and have MY name. I have many, many friends who didn't change their names when they got married. When will people get past all the old, BS cr*p with marriage (only a man and a woman, woman is man's property, etc...?

Sorry, but I don't think you understand that this is a fundamental, core belief that some have and that does not change easily nor should it. The problems arise when one persons beliefs clash with another's legal rights. Live and let live is apparently not an option.

I am all in favor of marriage between whoever wants to get married. I can totally see you so let us not go off the deep end here and start asking about eleven year olds and sixty year olds, etc.

The problem is a conflict between KS law stating that married couples filing as married at the federal level should file as married with the state, and KS law that doesn't recognize same-sex couples as legally married.

So, I suppose that the administration can say they don't recognize a same-sex marriage, even if the couple is filing as married with the feds.

It is, at the very least, confusing, and difficult for homosexual couples in KS.

I think that this could all be a moot point by April 15th of next year. The legislature will be convening in the meantime and could change the law not requiring that the state filing status be in conformity with the federal filing status at least as far as it pertains to same-sex married couples.

At the federal level, there is the option of being married but filing individually. So to avoid the conflict, simply file your federal taxes as individuals. (However, I do believe that once you do choose to file as a married couple, you cannot then go back to filing as an individual. So you can't keep going back and forth, year to year).

Of course, there is a very good reason to file together, that being that there are tax benefits to doing so. You will be forced to forgo those benefits. Which brings us back to the equal protections that we all should have. I agree with those above who have said you should thumb your nose at the Kansas law and file exactly as you choose to file at the federal level. Let those buffoons in Topeka defend their discriminatory ideas in a court of law. They will lose.

bigots use confused authoriy, tribal writings and myths, to justify what they would force on all.

Marriage is a civil event, by law. And should be equally treated by tax law, no matter which state authorized it. That has been the standard. Brownback needs some issues worked out. He seems to believe that he will be forced to marry another person. Or something.